Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.36.166.207 (talk) at 03:45, 8 September 2006 (yes the article sucks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Archives

• Archive 1 created Jul 14,2004 by Neutrality
• Archive 2 created Sep 6, 2004 by Rdsmith4
• Archive 3 created Oct 20,2004 by Rdsmith4
• Archive 4 created Nov 5, 2004 by
• Archive 5 created Jan 11,2005 by Jim (Trodel)
• Allegations of Bias Archive created Jan 17, 2005 by Jim (Trodel)
• Archive 7 by Kevin Baas 18:16, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Archive 8 by Trödel 18:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Archive 9 created June 21, 2005 by crazyeddie
• Archive 10 Re-created — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ)\'\' 28 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Individual vs share ratings, anchor/host specific bias section, \"major\" Kerry pen story, more misc., leadup to protection

• Archive 11 created July 18, 2005 by Shem

Protection, \"collusion,\" potential article RfC, minor & technical problems, misc.

• Archive 12 created September 14, 2005 by crazyeddie
• Archive 13 created January 16, 2006 by Aaron
• Archive 14

Live stream

For a short time this live stream very good worked:

192.5.109.51/ostn_foxnews.asx

It´s not pay tv and it´s not illegal , but the access is now blocked. Can someone bring this to work again?

My complaint with Fox news and this article

Fox news has a clear slant or bias towards the Republican Party. This is fine. There is a radio network named Air America out there with a clear slant towards the Democratic party.

The problem is that Fox news denies their bias which is dishonest. Further this article by ignoring this whole issue is not being honest or truthful.01001 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that may be true during the more commentative broadcasting hours (O\'Reilly, H&C, Greta, Gibson, Cavuto) but doesn\'t necessarily stand throughout all the broadcast day. The one point I would like to make would be that there are many out there who believe CNN has a liberal bias, but do we label them a \'\'liberal\'\' network? Chris 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It may well be that CNN has a liberal bias, although a very strong logical argument can be made that it has a right wing bias or at least a corporate bias. But clearly, CNN does not pretend to be that which it isnt at least not to the extent of Fox News. It is obvious that Fox news has a bias towards the Republican party. It is not honest for Fox News to deny this bias, and it is not honest nor truthful for this article to ignore this bias also.01001 06:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This will certainly be the argument that sways the masses!

Listen, until Fox says they’re right wing, or there is an unbiased report saying so (I believe there have been several to the contrary), the article shan’t contain “right wing”, “republican”, or “propaganda”. And now comes the time I pick apart your previous statements: 1.\'\'It may well be that CNN has a liberal bias, although a very strong logical argument can be made that it has a right wing bias or at least a corporate bias. \'\' Ok, first off…you just negated your premise, and then negated the negation. 2.\'\'But clearly, CNN does not pretend to be that which it isnt at least not to the extent of Fox News.\'\' So CNN doesn’t pretend to \'\'not\'\' be a liberal leaning network? Then they’ve admitted it, or at least have addressed it in some fashion. Oh, they haven\'t? Then why pick on FNC because you think they\'re so obviously rw. Squiggyfm 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting heated real quick lets step back and think about this. Try to view it from the other persons viewpoint both sides have some valid arguments thanks--Soliscjw 20:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As a libertarian with conservative values and a fan of Fox news, I totally believe that Fox is biased towards conservatism and Republicans. I think conservatives denying Fox\'s bias (with a straight face) is a big joke, viewed by them as equally as ridiculous as liberals\' denials that the \"mainstream\" media in the U.S. isn\'t liberally baised. I wouldn\'t be surprised if the inside joke behind Fox\'s \"fair and balanced\" is that they mean \"we\'re fair and balanced because we balance the mainstream media\'s liberal reporting with conservative reporting\". Unfortunately, it is not in the interest for someone who makes their living through supposedly objective reporting to admit they even have personal political views, let alone that they affect their reporting. Lawyer2b 21:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How can it be maintained that the mainstream media is liberal in view of the coverage of WMDs in Iraq before the invasion? There was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs, and yet the mainstream media gave the argument that Iraq had WMDs credence. How can the mainstream media possibly be considered liberal in view of this?01001 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a statement such as:

The network appears to hold a rightist slant due to the nature of the news it mentions.

would suffice? --Nantonos 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, that would violate original research. Secondly, it isn\'t permitted under NPOV. Thirdly, it isn\'t a fact. Like squiggyfm said - until it comes out and says it is a conservative/liberal/republican/democratic/libertarian/green/rabbled etc. network, \'\'\'it is not factual\'\'\' to claim it as one. --Mrmiscellanious 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel word tag

In the last few edits, the addition of this tag happened to the article. I am wondering, was the addition of this article encompassing the entire article or a section of the article that needs work? Chris 04:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has been there for some time, weasle words for nearly a week, and neither LILVOKA nor the other editor have made any specific objections here or attempts to resolve, so I\'ve taken them down. Just slapping {{totallydisputed}} on articles then disappearing is a misuse of the templates. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversies consensus

An issue in the past of this article, and possibly to come around again, but how exactly should the article go about possibly introducing the idea of the network\'s bias in the introduction? One of the latest edits have returned it into the introduction. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 23:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I\'m in favor of abolishing both FNC and CNN\'s controversies sections and articles (they are essentially POV Forks at best). I do not see any substantial criticisms on either side that would meet the criteria for being \"notable\". I believe a simple wikilink to the article is best at this stage. \"Summarizing\" it will more than likely result in numerous edit wars. --Mrmiscellanious 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

FNC maintains they are NOT a conservative news channel. If somebody wants to add it to a criticism section, so be it. But it should not be in the introduction. Adding this continually is somebody\'s POV. I have reverted it again. AuburnPilot 21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading the article again, I realized there already is a criticism section. That\'s the perfect place for allegations of a bias news representation. AuburnPilot 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article sucks

When Fox is discussed, when people search Wiki for FNC, there should be something in the first section and its own section about FNC bias. \'\'That\'s\'\' the major issue with FNC, that\'s what people want to discuss when it comes to FNC. This article really commits the crime of ommission by leaving all that stuff to the separate article. I corrected the obviously bogus implication that Fox and CNN receive equal amounts of criticism but I would like to see this article rewritten in a more reader-friendly style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.54.179 (talk • contribs) 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to your POV that \'that\'s what people want to discuss when it comes to FNC\'. If you can substantiate that with some reliable source, feel free to add it to the article. Otherwise, leave your POV out of this article, and remember that wikipedia is not a soapbox. The statement that you \'corrected\' did not say that Fox and CNN receive equal amounts of criticism - so please either cite a source that says Fox receives more criticism, or restore the original phrase. Isarig 01:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The previous version by 141.149.54.179 needed to be changed, but as I began to change it, Clindhartsen did. The new version is written as fact, rather than POV. Much better. AuburnPilot 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as fact it needs some citations. AuburnPilot 01:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This part of the article is a serious problem. In my opinion, we should have the heading \"Controversies ...\" etc. followed by a very short, NPOV statement stating the main areas the corresponding article covers. What we should not have is a selection of the criticisms themselves, especially since they have been placed here without any opposing views. Can\'t we at least agree on this simple point? Edders 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason all of the trademark discussion was listed under the controversy section is that an editor forgot to add the </ref> tag to the end of a citation. By doing so, the section was lost and added onto the reference section. I restored the section. Just a side note: I didnt write the section, I just corrected the </ref>. I think it needs to be seriously edited to remove POV statements like \"Since its inception, the network has been one of the most heavily-criticized of American media outlets.\" AuburnPilot 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Controversies concerning bias etc. should stay in their respective articles, and not spill over into the main Fox News piece, which many people use simply to look up technical things such as ratings, well-known employees, where it airs etc. Edders 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, my source would be that for every article you can find that mentions possible CNN-bias, I can find at least two that do the same with regard to Fox. That\'s why I\'m putting it back in. You can use this baseless assertion that Fox *doesn\'t* receive more criticism than its competitors, or that we simply don\'t know, but anyone who reads/views a variety of media knows it. I\'m going to wait a bit to see if there\'s any more REAL discussion about inserting more information on the FNC bias issues and if a real debate doesn\'t happen within the week, I\'ll create a section in my own terms and then revise the maximum number of times I have to keep it in. The current wording of the article--in which the most heatedly discussed propaganda organ of our times is discussed in a completely apolitical way--is an absurd product of minds that are either defective or tendentious. I think a small version of the separate article, as well as something in the opening sentence of this article, would be a good place to start.

Now if you need a source that the partisanship of FNC is a matter frequently discussed--that it is indeed SYNONYMOUS with the network--I will produce at least 50 different media sources, none of them blogs, that show their paritsanship being discussed *if* you will agree to vigourously defend the new partisanship section when I produce. I have a feeling you won\'t agree to this because right now you\'re in the middle of denying the sky is blue (not that Fox is partisan--just that it\'s an important topic frequently entwined with any (tho not all) of the articles on the network.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.54.179 (talk • contribs) 7 September 2006 (UTC)

unsigned2|7 September 2006|141.149.54.179: You seriously need to calm down. Insinuating that other editors are either partisans or mentally retarded, just because they disagree with you; destroys the chances of people reaching a consensus on issues. Don\'t forget that wikipedia asks you assume good faith on the part of other editors, most of whom are simply dedicated to making a more encyclopedic article. Again, keep all controversies and criticisms relating to bias in their appropriate article. When you start adding pieces from that article to this one you have to balance them with counter-arguments or defences, which will inevitably turn a small section into a big one. The unwarranted amount of criticism stuffed into the con/crit, section in this article is an eyesore - readers will scroll through an article that looks (mostly) professional and encyclopedic only to hit a massive pile of POV that ruins it. Sadly, the vast majority of discussion concerning this article revolves around the controversy and criticism section, something that needs to be addressed by moving it to the proper place. Edders 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists